3 ms·
In a word, yes. The code execution CVEs, especially for iOS which is the subject here, all start with <=2014. There has been a huge amount of work since then (a
by c0pium 3y ago
In a word, yes. The code execution CVEs, especially for iOS which is the subject here, all start with <=2014. There has been a huge amount of work since then (accelerated by the research device program).
It’s a favorite boogeyman of the “nation state actors are under your bed” crowd. Which is stupid because they all recommend avoiding public charging and would they be doing that if they were siting on high-quality exploits?
There’s a reason NSO doesn’t target USB, and it’s not because they enjoy creating VMs in the image decoder.
- lucideer 3y agoJuice jacking tends to use HID emulation - that's feature abuse, not CVE exploitation. The point is it isn't viable at any scale - nation states advise avoiding public charging because employees of companies they subcontract have been individually targetted. They're not going to be doing any indiscriminate mass exploitation of the general public with it though.
- c0pium 3y agoThat’s absurd, no it doesn’t. It refers to a combination of the 2011 defcon demo of eliciting a device to sync data by default and a fever-dream of getting code execution by abusing the USB stack. You’re thinking of BadUSB or OMGCable. 1) which is a totally different attack 2) not especially applicable to smartphones 3) very much a thing that happens in real life (I have responded to incidents where one was used) Lastly, there are plenty of CVEs issued for “feature abuse”, that’s a meaningless distinction.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]